Sign in to follow this  
Roflcopterkklol

No more SSTO's

Recommended Posts

Alright, I grudgingly accept that it is possible to get a Mk2 SSTO to space with a NERVA engine attached to it. I had to use the Terriers to do it though. On the other hand, I had no problems at all with overheating this time.

PVRwK8X.png

I used a 45* ascent with four turbojets, and activated the NERVA at 7000m for a speed boost. This gives an apoapsis of around 60Km. I shut down the engines and closed the intakes when they got down to 20Kn each, then activated the Terrier engines. Those occupy the same space as two of the jets, which I guess makes it a hybrid engine. I shut those down once I'd gotten a 75Km apoaspsis, and let the NERVA engine hold the apoapsis up while the craft left the atmosphere. Once it had, I activated them again and left them running until they ran out of oxidiser at about 2000m/s. The NERVA got it the rest of the way into an 80/81Km orbit with plenty of fuel for a deorbit burn, or possibly something even more ambitious. That part did require some very high angles to keep the apoapsis near the craft, but it wasn't too weak to do it.

... Now I need to work out how to get it down without speedbrakes. Something to add next I think.

Edited by RedDwarfIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I have with 1.0 SSTO's is that I have no idea what the proper accent profile is now. All I've managed to do so far is accidentally make a Mk2 SSTO fly too fast at around 15 km, burn up my canards and lose pitch control, and then eventually blow up the cockpit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem I have with 1.0 SSTO's is that I have no idea what the proper accent profile is now. All I've managed to do so far is accidentally make a Mk2 SSTO fly too fast at around 15 km, burn up my canards and lose pitch control, and then eventually blow up the cockpit.

As far as I can tell, best profile is 45* until your jets flame out, then level off and use your space engines. Don't go above 1000m/s while in the ascent or you're likely to lose canards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I got a payload fraction of about 32% to orbit with an ssto spaceplane. Altho might have a bit small fuel amount for proper return which I havent tried yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

o51xhCI.png

Based on my other spaceplane, this one can carry a few passengers to a comfortable 80/80 orbit, with fuel to spare for rendevous or atmo flight. Should probably have fitted a docking port, since this one doesn't have one in-line like the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good riddance to easy mode SSTOs

thats one thing this patch got right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried launching SSTOs as I had done previously, getting to the edge of breathable air and accelerating. Its not working any more.

But messing around, I've just found I can effortlessly launch a small SSTO:

- 2 x Rapier engines with pre-coolers, 1 x Whiplash air breather

- Take off, pull up, max throttle

- A few parts break off as you overheat, but the engines are so overpowered that you can blast your way to a 200km orbit easier than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did manage to get my 4-man crew shuttle into a ~90km orbit, The only thing I find is that it doesn't leave much fuel for anything after that, but at least it's in orbit, so I guess I could send a mini-ferry from a station to pick up the crew to transfer over.

Overall, this is the smallest SSTO under the new aero I can achieve. However when you do go larger, it gets easier. But I'm a guy who likes small and sleek and futuristic. :)

7c5pCZb.png

IvS2MU9.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SSTOs are definitely not dead. Jets are nerfed, but that's not the end of the world!

I was getting about 4000 Delta-V from Mainsail-powered space shuttle orbiters. With the new aero, I can get them in space with about 3000 dV. Sure, there's the Isp nerf, but the said orbiter had space for an orange tank to orbit. What if I move the orange tank so that it can feed the plane?

All you need to do is either go full-rocket (Aerospike) or fire your rockets before you reach the BBQ speed at high altitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Roflcopter here as I know where he is coming from.

Although it is possible to make SSTO's and get them to do some useful stuff like carry payloads the biggest problem I have, as a person who posts and reads a lot in the Space Craft Exchange, this update will kill a lot of creativity in peoples designs. There will be many parts you may not be able to use due to the heat mechanics, Jet engines and rocket engines that won't be up to the task, too much emphasis on making spaceplanes too rocket like. I'm not just talking about having to re-design ships because everyone knew that would have to happen, I'm talking about spaceplanes having a much narrower design parameter to get them to work. I would say the Space Craft Exchange was about 50/50 between SPH and VAB builds but I wonder if it will end up being 10/90 now.

Some people say that this is more realistic however I don't believe jets just cutting out at a certain altitude is realistic. Before they would keep going although you would obviously have to throttle down but they gradually died off, now they seem to just go from 50 kn to 0 in a fraction of a second even if you have the air for them. No spaceplanes in real life? Well, yeah and there's no Mk 1 command pod that can sustain a Kerbal for 3 years while he goes to Jool and back. If they redesigned the game so you would have to carry 3 years worth of supplies for a Kerbal then the ship would be massive and that would kill creativity.

Anyway, I hope the developers don't think I am being over critical here because most of the 1.0 update I am having real fun with and it will add a whole new dimension to the game. I just think comments like, it's more realistic, you'll have to learn to fly again, and you'll have to build new craft are disingenuous and missing some points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Roflcopter here as I know where he is coming from.

Although it is possible to make SSTO's and get them to do some useful stuff like carry payloads the biggest problem I have, as a person who posts and reads a lot in the Space Craft Exchange, this update will kill a lot of creativity in peoples designs. There will be many parts you may not be able to use due to the heat mechanics, Jet engines and rocket engines that won't be up to the task, too much emphasis on making spaceplanes too rocket like. I'm not just talking about having to re-design ships because everyone knew that would have to happen, I'm talking about spaceplanes having a much narrower design parameter to get them to work. I would say the Space Craft Exchange was about 50/50 between SPH and VAB builds but I wonder if it will end up being 10/90 now.

Some people say that this is more realistic however I don't believe jets just cutting out at a certain altitude is realistic. Before they would keep going although you would obviously have to throttle down but they gradually died off, now they seem to just go from 50 kn to 0 in a fraction of a second even if you have the air for them. No spaceplanes in real life? Well, yeah and there's no Mk 1 command pod that can sustain a Kerbal for 3 years while he goes to Jool and back. If they redesigned the game so you would have to carry 3 years worth of supplies for a Kerbal then the ship would be massive and that would kill creativity.

Anyway, I hope the developers don't think I am being over critical here because most of the 1.0 update I am having real fun with and it will add a whole new dimension to the game. I just think comments like, it's more realistic, you'll have to learn to fly again, and you'll have to build new craft are disingenuous and missing some points.

Engines and tanks, and wings, and Girders and panels ,Most space plane parts all have very High Heat tolerances. Thinking you mean that the added weight (which is bad) is going to be the biggest problem for those builds.

Most people use tons of Girders and Panels for cool looking space planes. Heat is not an issue for those. But weight is.

I mean space planes should be hard. Its the main reason we don't have any yet in real life. But from a game view point they really are not that bad. They have a limited purpose though.. Unless you go super huge. LOL.

Edited by malkuth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people say that this is more realistic however I don't believe jets just cutting out at a certain altitude is realistic.
So you're saying that a jet engine that's starved for air should just continue running no matter how thin the air got? I mean, sure, I wouldn't have a problem with them continuing to run but just providing no thrust, at that point you're just dumping fuel over the side...
If they redesigned the game so you would have to carry 3 years worth of supplies for a Kerbal then the ship would be massive
Much less massive than you think, if we go purely off water, oxygen, and "food" densities.
that would kill creativity.
That's a very subjective thing right there. Wanderfound, and others in the Realism Overhaul and/or FAR community, have made some fantastic things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can cram it into the mk3 bay, my SSTOs can lift it.

First design, turbo-ramjet/rapier hybrid:

https://scontent-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10986175_10103548407260233_3056408651622725291_n.jpg?oh=9fb75b1210df356aa49b62f443497f09&oe=55C6C245

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11205152_10103548408288173_5405657931943816741_n.jpg?oh=7bff57b1435c0c04bae949e0be3e5dd7&oe=55DE75B6&__gda__=1439780323_f5fa0ddde63b7ef1e9deccd23d576d6d

2nd design... I haven't even optimized my ascent profile yet.

Tonight when I get back, I'll be working on my 100 ton to orbit design that will keep everything in an aeroshell with aa 3.75m base.

That one should be quite useful.

How do you make a 3.75m aeroshell? With fairings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or you could just modify the the heat parameters in the config if you feel that certain parts are not preforming to your desires.

What am I saying, that would be heresy.

Stock zealots ahoy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those occupy the same space as two of the jets, which I guess makes it a hybrid engine.

Do you mean you clipped the Terrier into the Turbojet? Not pointing fingers or anything, just want to know how I could make my own hybrid. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Engines and tanks, and wings, and Girders and panels ,Most space plane parts all have very High Heat tolerances. Thinking you mean that the added weight (which is bad) is going to be the biggest problem for those builds.

Most people use tons of Girders and Panels for cool looking space planes. Heat is not an issue for those. But weight is.

I mean space planes should be hard. Its the main reason we don't have any yet in real life. But from a game view point they really are not that bad. They have a limited purpose though.. Unless you go super huge. LOL.

I'm thinking of the Spacecraft Exchange point of view were almost any and all parts are used for aesthetic purposes. I doubt weight is much of an issue now.

- - - Updated - - -

So you're saying that a jet engine that's starved for air should just continue running no matter how thin the air got? I mean, sure, I wouldn't have a problem with them continuing to run but just providing no thrust, at that point you're just dumping fuel over the side...

Yes, with the thrust they give proportional to how thin the air is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm thinking of the Spacecraft Exchange point of view were almost any and all parts are used for aesthetic purposes. I doubt weight is much of an issue now.

Fly a SSTO and tell me that again. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or you could just modify the the heat parameters in the config if you feel that certain parts are not preforming to your desires.

What am I saying, that would be heresy.

Stock zealots ahoy!

The problem with that is people make a lot of stock craft in the Spacecraft Exchange that are designed for anyone to fly at default settings.

- - - Updated - - -

Fly a SSTO and tell me that again. :)

Heh, I have. This is a redesign of my Mk3 Skylon from 0.90 and I was able to rip out almost all of the hidden wings I had in the fuselage and it has plenty of lift thanks to the new aero package. I was even able to add more fuel so I had enough DeltaV to burn the Rapiers longer in rocket mode to get it into orbit. Has 650 DeltaV left in orbit for doing stuff.

GZH5OiC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that is people make a lot of stock craft in the Spacecraft Exchange that are designed for anyone to fly at default settings.

- - - Updated - - -

Heh, I have. This is a redesign of my Mk3 Skylon from 0.90 and I was able to rip out almost all of the hidden wings I had in the fuselage and it has plenty of lift thanks to the new aero package. I was even able to add more fuel so I had enough DeltaV to burn the Rapiers longer in rocket mode to get it into orbit. Has 650 DeltaV left in orbit for doing stuff.

http://i.imgur.com/GZH5OiC.jpg

Still not seeing an issue looks like a very reasonable vessel. Now add a couple hundred Panels and girders to it and tell me what fails first.. Getting to orbit or a heat issue. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I am coming to realize is that I needed to look at my space plane flight power profiles. After you have built enough you realize that some planes have better low or high altitude performance when they pile on speed. In past versions I would normally shoot for a plane with a flat acceleration curve through all altitudes, but in the new model that is causing my planes to blow up. Basically what it means is I want a slower plane at takeoff. So if I was to leave my ascent profile somewhere between 20 and 30 degrees the same as I did in .90 I would have to do compensate doing the following: Since jets have mountains of power at lower altitudes I build the plane with less jet engines leaving the plane slightly underpowered so it does not blow up in the thicker atmosphere all the while it is slowly trucking the majority of my fuel to a higher altitude before lighting the secondary engines. My lesson is use the jets for moving heavy weight to altitude and not so much for acceleration. In real terms that means you have to depend less on jets for speed and more for heavy lifting, switching modes on my rapiers faster, closing intakes etc etc. If you have a plane saved from an older version of KSP that dragged butt at low altitudes but quickly accelerated higher than 20k I would load it up and use that as a test bed. What I think a lot of players are running into is they throttle back to keep the plane from blowing up at max Q (pressure) but when they exit on the other side they hit the jet altitude limits if they are flying a straight ascent profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or two or three.. Heck, the Skylon project is going ahead even though it's actually slower (and much less efficient) than the old turbojets in air-breathing mode, and has to reach a much higher speed in the end than any stock-scale KSP vessel.

Sacrificing game balance for "fun" is not always a good thing either. Especially when overcoming a challenge is ever so satisfying. I'm actually looking forward to making some SSTO-planes (note that 'SSTO' absolutely does not automatically mean a plane-type vessel) now that it isn't "#lol on some turbojets and RCS your way into circularization".

I support the broad, heavy duty nerfs 100%.

Anyhow, if you're REALLY super sad about no #lolturbojets, I would happily make a little MM config for you that would make them similar to 0.90 performance. Well, I'm not good at things that AREN'T nerfs, but I'm sure I could come up with something by just running the nerf process in reverse heh ;)

I'm on board with the nerfs... but the nerfing seems wildly inconsistent. Planes definitely seem more realistic now... but I *accidentally* SSTO'd a tiny little 7-part test rocket playing around last night. 1.0 seems to heavily favor the 1950s sci-fi vision of one-piece land-on-tail rockets flying everywhere.

Which, truth be told, I can probably get behind, realism or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in this thread, I posted my SSTOs that can carry pretty much anything you can fit in a mk3 cargo bay, and said I was going to work on a 100 ton to orbit craft with the payload in an aeroshell... that was not an empty boast... then I see this comment:

I agree with Roflcopter here as I know where he is coming from.

Although it is possible to make SSTO's and get them to do some useful stuff like carry payloads the biggest problem I have, as a person who posts and reads a lot in the Space Craft Exchange, this update will kill a lot of creativity in peoples designs.

Want some of my designs?

11157347_10103548407260233_3056408651622725291_o.jpg

Maximum payload not determined yet. Reentry certified (but be careful! or you lose the canards)

11205152_10103548408288173_5405657931943816741_n.jpg?oh=671e5c9de0015e93937d253eb139b57c&oe=55E14F5D&__gda__=1440838886_34aea1d9d7230c416499035265a71b60

Maximum payload is at least 46 tons. Reentry certified.

Basically if you can cram it in a mk3 bay without part clipping, it will lift it.

But... "those mk3 bays are too limiting!" you say? Well, I have a solution for you!

I present, the hornet mk1:

11032221_10103550674651363_2148940416804389397_o.jpg

Its still the mk1 version, and has some bugs to work out... like that aeroshell deployment... sometimes damages it:

11174760_10103550674172323_962599815714246900_n.jpg?oh=71428102442a2caa5e6dd8d739300ca6&oe=55E54A54&__gda__=1439101548_fed82f51ea6d4cbdec638dd05329621b

Note the damaged elevons on the canard

this time, nothing was damaged:

11164685_10103550674182303_2013766903372658940_n.jpg?oh=2d49878dc6048f30a6a35b04c005f83d&oe=55D2AE68&__gda__=1439365430_89f3cdde61779546705b51ea9126e7be

Also note the massive fuel stores (79x79 km orbit)

Payload released... to give you an idea of the size that the aeroshell accomodates, and to see the fuel remaining in the craft.

10419418_10103550674142383_5163611685085914391_n.jpg?oh=def160377fd168cdfbf2a1c23f59e0ba&oe=55D0ADA0&__gda__=1440763225_581b2bed53ee1024bc01fd0ef65628e9

Unfortunately, the aeroshells always have a circular cross section, and I can't make it wider without it scraping the runway... and I'm not sure how it would handle the drag.

I haven't tried to reenter with this one yet... but it should do fine unladen. I still need to tweak it (it lacks airbrakes of any sort).

Its difficult to pilot though... it can't break mach 1 in a climb, or even level flight... my flight profile was to ascend to 7km, then enter a shallow dive, as it exceeds mach one, the engine power increases, and I slowly pull out of the dive, reach level flight and speed up (which increases engine output), and then start climbing again... i was able to reach 1,300 m/s before switching to rockets (closed cycle on the rapiers wasn't used.. the TWR wasn't really needed, and they have a lower Isp).

An earlier verion had 24 instead of 28 engines, and could still break mach 1 and get to at least 1,200 m/s before switching to rockets, but I decided to give it more power to make the ascent easier.

It has some OX-stat panels in the forward cargobay (where the reaction wheels, probe core, batteries, and extendable solar panels are kept)... nothing vaporized during the ascent... but heat transfer slowly did its work, and at 64 km, long after engines were cut, I lost 2x OX-stats...

It was 487 tons on the runway, and I think it was 337 tons in orbit.... but ... dat payload capacity....

Lets summarize:

3x orange tanks (well 2 + 2 half orange tanks): 3*36 = 108 tons

8018 Liquid fuel left: 8018/6400*32 = 40 tons of Liquid Fuel remaining

10868 Oxidizer left: 10868/6400*32 = 54 tons of OX

54+40+108 = 202 tons of payload + usable resources delivered to orbit

202 tons to orbit!

Inside a large aeroshell.

If that doesn't count as a useful payload... I don't know what would.

Note, as the aeroshell base is still attached, you can get 100% recovery - fuel costs.

Edited by KerikBalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should post that in stock payload challenge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoys me personally is that the new aero system does not like planes with lots of wing parts, and does not consider the actual layout of the wings. For me, aesthetics are almost more important than the actual practicality of the craft, and the problem with restricted wing usage is that I can't really build what I want. Instead everything becomes a tube with engines and two efficient swept wings along the sides. That's ugly, nobody wants to fly that kind of plane and it limits creativity. I think the system should try to check the layout of the wing placement, as many of the designs I make certainly look more aerodynamic than what is currently favoured by KSP aerodynamics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Want some of my designs?

When you're done tweaking, I'd love to take a look at some craft files for those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this